At 07:05 PM 11/12/00, Damien wrote:
>The implication is that people en masse are likely to abandon all decency
>and history and respect for each other, a rather strange opinion in a list
>where the market (a device for summing the expressed values of all players)
>is held in highest regard. True, most markets are highly asymmetrical in
>the purchasing power of different individuals, so if it's thought to lead
>to a superior outcome than ochlocratic summations presumably the richer you
>are the more moral, decent, thoughtful, prudent, insightful, just, kindly
>and so on you are as well.
I think this misses an important point about the differences between
markets and democracies. In a democracy, pure or not, the majority gets
what it wants and the rest are out of luck. In a market, we all vote
continually for all kinds of goods and services. Unlike a democracy, we do
not all have to buy a Toyota Corolla if that is the most popular choice.
People get a lot meaner when a voting system is win-lose.
I do think there are ways of improving a democracy to allow more winners
(in terms of preferences). This was the kind of discussion I was hoping for
here, rather than a blow by blow account of events. However, clearly the
will of the people on this List has spoken, so I withdraw my request to
hold back from chatting about the subject. Besides, some of the posts
*have* added to what you'll find elsewhere.
firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com
President, Extropy Institute. www.extropy.org
Senior Content Architect, ManyWorlds Consulting: www.manyworlds.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:20 MDT